Thread Reader helps you read and share Twitter threads easily!
I'm @ThreadReaderApp a Twitter bot here to help you read threads more easily. To trigger me, you just have to reply to (or quote) any tweet of the thread you want to unroll and mention me with the "unroll" keyword and I'll send you a link back on Twitter 😀
— Thread Reader App (@threadreaderapp) November 25, 2017
X thread is series of posts by the same author connected with a line!
From any post in the thread, mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll
Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us easily!
Practice here first or read more on our help page!
Recent
Israel the Jewish State wrote, "Stunning Figure: U.S. security aid to Israel, which stands at $3.3 billion a year, is often viewed as one-way. In practice, however, it is one of the most profitable investments for the American economy.
1)
1)
According to a report by journalist Ariel Kahana, conservative calculations show that the budget transferred to Israel generates at least $15 billion for the U.S. economy.
2)
2)
Broader and more generous estimates claim that the U.S. earns around $48 billion a year from its aid to Israel.
Beyond the direct financial return, Israel serves as the most effective showcase for the American weapons industry.
3)
Beyond the direct financial return, Israel serves as the most effective showcase for the American weapons industry.
3)
20 Years of NIFG - The Top 20s!
Day 15: Northern Ireland Goalkeepers with Fewest Goals Conceded per 90 Minutes
#GAWA #NornIron
Day 15: Northern Ireland Goalkeepers with Fewest Goals Conceded per 90 Minutes
#GAWA #NornIron
20. Allen McKnight
10 #NornIron caps (1987-1989)
1.40 goals conceded / 90 mins
14 goals / 900 minutes
@goaliemck1
10 #NornIron caps (1987-1989)
1.40 goals conceded / 90 mins
14 goals / 900 minutes
@goaliemck1
19. Phil Hughes
3 #NornIron caps (1986-1987)
1.33 goals conceded / 90 mins
4 goals / 270 minutes
3 #NornIron caps (1986-1987)
1.33 goals conceded / 90 mins
4 goals / 270 minutes
Why is Surah At-Tawbah the only surah in the entire Qur’an without Bismillah?
The answer might surprise you.
The answer might surprise you.
Every other surah begins the same way:
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem.
In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate.
But not this one.
Surah At-Tawbah opens differently.
No Bismillah.
No introduction.
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem.
In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate.
But not this one.
Surah At-Tawbah opens differently.
No Bismillah.
No introduction.
The surah begins immediately with a declaration concerning treaties that had been violated and covenants that had been broken.
People made promises.
Then they betrayed them.
They pledged loyalty.
Then they turned away.
People made promises.
Then they betrayed them.
They pledged loyalty.
Then they turned away.
If Democratic voters are looking for an authentic working-class Mainer who'll take on corporate America & the political establishment, then there's still one in the Senate race. I dug into the archives to tell Troy Jackson's origin story as a politician🧵:
Jackson's political career is rooted in the struggles of Maine's long-exploited Maine loggers, which over 1998-99 saw Jackson & two others lead a series of blockades of the Quebec border, calling for an end to imported Canadian workers that were used to undercut them:
In truth, the loggers' struggles went far beyond the Canadian workers. The problem at its root was corporate concentration & greed, and the loggers' lack of rights/bargaining power. All this had turned logging into a precarious industry that more & more workers were abandoning:
Good Afternoon everyone! This is post 47 in my series on Kansas history. Today’s story is on a famous poet and social activist that grew up here in Kansas! (A thread🧵)
The opening photograph in this post was taken by another famous Kansan Gordon Parks! Check out Kansas history post 45 on him if you haven’t already.
James Langston Hughes was born on February 1st, 1901 in Joplin, Missouri. His father left for Cuba and then Mexico shortly after Langston’s birth to escape the racial intolerance of the United States. Langston grew up primarily with his maternal grandmother in Lawrence, Kansas while his mother went around the region in search of work. He moved to Lincoln, Illinois to live with his mother after the death of his grandmother and while living there he began to write short stories, plays, and poetry and was elected the class poet. After graduating high school in 1920 he moved to live with his father in Mexico until he was able to enroll in Columbia University in New York.
Roger Froikin @rlefraim wrote, "I have a suggestion for the US Congress
Stop tolerating lies under oath.
What do I mean by that?
1)
Stop tolerating lies under oath.
What do I mean by that?
1)
@rlefraim Yesterday, in a Congressional hearing, the head of a US medical school, in response to a simple question by a congressman, lied under oath.
The congressman asked “Do you, sir, believe that a biological man can get pregnant”.
2)
The congressman asked “Do you, sir, believe that a biological man can get pregnant”.
2)
@rlefraim The medical school director, an MD himself, answered by evading the question, saying that he will not reject the possibility.
Evasions, especially when not a matter of self-incrimination, when protecting some political interest, is a lie,
3)
Evasions, especially when not a matter of self-incrimination, when protecting some political interest, is a lie,
3)
Roger Froikin @rlefraim wrote, "Israeli opinion polls – what can be believed?
Israel is not unique when it comes to opinion polling. It has long been understood that polls are often designed to create impressions, to manipulate public opinion more than to understand it.
1)
Israel is not unique when it comes to opinion polling. It has long been understood that polls are often designed to create impressions, to manipulate public opinion more than to understand it.
1)
@rlefraim When we see poll results, they are rarely accompanied by details of how sampling was done, what areas the samples lived in, the ages of respondents, what kind of questions were asked, or what kind of poll was conducted —
2)
2)
@rlefraim whether on the internet, by telephone, what kind of telephones, and the wording of the questions.
I have recently taken a look at the most frequently conducted Israeli polls, and while my information is not as detailed as I would like, the following are my conclusions.
3)
I have recently taken a look at the most frequently conducted Israeli polls, and while my information is not as detailed as I would like, the following are my conclusions.
3)
Thread | 🇺🇦 @FedorovMykhailo 's own farewell post, listing 22 achievements, followed his dismissal, not a resignation, per Kyiv Independent sourcing. Zelensky removed him as Defense Minister after a meeting with military leadership on July 15, following Prime Minister @Svyrydenko_Y 's own resignation the day before, which triggered a broader cabinet reshuffle.
Zelensky had reportedly offered Fedorov the position of head of the future Cabinet of Ministers instead, but he declined, wanting to continue the military reforms he'd started.
Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko has been offered the Defense Ministry role, a lawmaker told Kyiv Independent, though Klymenko's own spokesperson said he was "surprised by the president's proposal."
2/4 ⬇️
Zelensky had reportedly offered Fedorov the position of head of the future Cabinet of Ministers instead, but he declined, wanting to continue the military reforms he'd started.
Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko has been offered the Defense Ministry role, a lawmaker told Kyiv Independent, though Klymenko's own spokesperson said he was "surprised by the president's proposal."
2/4 ⬇️
MP Yaroslav Zheleznyak: Zelensky said he "cannot choose between Syrskyi and Fedorov," and that Fedorov "failed the reform of the TCC," Ukraine's territorial recruitment centers, the mobilization system that's remained one of the war's most persistent points of friction between civilians and the military.
That detail matters: it suggests Fedorov's removal wasn't purely about defense-tech performance, the area where his own list of achievements is genuinely substantial, but about an unresolved tension with Commander-in-Chief Syrskyi specifically over recruitment authority.
3/4 ⬇️
That detail matters: it suggests Fedorov's removal wasn't purely about defense-tech performance, the area where his own list of achievements is genuinely substantial, but about an unresolved tension with Commander-in-Chief Syrskyi specifically over recruitment authority.
3/4 ⬇️
Fedorov's own list includes disabling Russian Starlink access, launching "Logistical Lockdown" (the Crimea isolation campaign), raising drone interception rates from 83% to 91% and cruise missile interception from 47% to 87%, securing $40 billion in partner support across three UDCG meetings, and directing Operation Auchan, which halted a Russian mechanized offensive for six months, all cited elsewhere in this thread's own coverage over the past month.
Kyiv Independent's own headline captures the public mood: "'Is it really necessary?'" Fedorov would become the second consecutive defense minister removed after roughly six months in the role, following predecessor Denys Shmyhal. The Economist reported tensions "simmered barely below the surface" at a war council in early July, generals reportedly frustrated over missile and ammunition procurement even as Fedorov's tech-driven reforms delivered results elsewhere.
4/4 ⬇️
Kyiv Independent's own headline captures the public mood: "'Is it really necessary?'" Fedorov would become the second consecutive defense minister removed after roughly six months in the role, following predecessor Denys Shmyhal. The Economist reported tensions "simmered barely below the surface" at a war council in early July, generals reportedly frustrated over missile and ammunition procurement even as Fedorov's tech-driven reforms delivered results elsewhere.
4/4 ⬇️
🧵America's Third Founding:
In the wake of whatever Trump does, America needs to get its constitutional house in order
Americans love to debate how to fix our democracy.
End Citizens United. Abolish the Electoral College. Ban partisan gerrymandering. Expand the House of Representatives. Impose congressional term limits. Prevent another corrupt president from abusing the powers of the office.
One of the greatest failures of American civic education is that we teach people what government does, but rarely how government changes. We memorize the three branches of government and the Bill of Rights, yet few Americans understand the difference between constitutional law and ordinary legislation—or why that distinction determines whether a reform is politically possible.
The United States has already been founded twice.
The first founding came in 1787, when the Constitution established a new system of government unlike any the world had seen. The Bill of Rights soon followed as the political compromise that secured ratification, creating the constitutional framework that has endured for more than two centuries.
The second founding came after the Civil War.
The nation nearly destroyed itself over slavery and secession. Four years of unimaginable bloodshed settled the question of whether the Union would survive, but victory on the battlefield was only the beginning. During Reconstruction, Congress required the former Confederate states to ratify the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments before they could fully reclaim representation in the federal government.
Those amendments transformed the Constitution. They abolished slavery, established birthright citizenship, guaranteed equal protection and due process, and prohibited denying the right to vote on the basis of race. The Fourteenth Amendment, in particular, became the constitutional foundation for much of modern American liberty. Many of the civil rights and individual freedoms Americans take for granted today trace directly back to the Second Founding.
Every generation inherits the Constitution, but only one generation has had an opportunity to fundamentally remake it: the Civil War generation.
Today, America faces another constitutional moment, not because states are preparing to leave the Union, but because many of the assumptions built into an eighteenth-century Constitution no longer fit the realities of twenty-first-century politics. Unlimited campaign spending, partisan gerrymandering, an Electoral College that can reject the national popular vote, and growing concerns about presidential accountability have exposed weaknesses the Framers could never have anticipated.
Yet our political debate almost always skips over the most important question.
Can these problems actually be fixed? Some can, most cannot—at least not through ordinary legislation. Congress cannot abolish the Electoral College. It cannot rewrite the constitutional qualifications for the presidency. It cannot simply declare that money is no longer protected political speech if the Supreme Court continues to interpret the First Amendment as it does today.
To do these things the Constitution itself must be changed and the process to do so is arduous- hard to pull off in the best of times and these are not the best of times.
To amend the Constitution you need a 2/3rds vote in both chambers of Congress and ratification by 3/4s of the states. This is why despite passing through both the House and Senate, the Equal Rights Amendment failed to reach ratification.
In a country that can’t even pass a budget through normal legislation those barriers aren’t just hard, they are impossible. The last time we successfully amended the Constitution it was in 1996 and the issue was preventing congress from giving itself current-term pay raises. Hardly controversial.
History teaches us that America’s greatest constitutional reforms have never emerged from ordinary politics. They have emerged from extraordinary crises. The Constitution replaced the failed Articles of Confederation. The Reconstruction Amendments followed the Civil War. Each founding was born from a national reckoning that forced Americans to rethink the rules by which they governed themselves.
If America experiences another constitutional reckoning, we should not waste it. We should already know which reforms would strengthen our democracy—and what it would actually take to achieve them.
That is the purpose of this essay.
In the wake of whatever Trump does, America needs to get its constitutional house in order
Americans love to debate how to fix our democracy.
End Citizens United. Abolish the Electoral College. Ban partisan gerrymandering. Expand the House of Representatives. Impose congressional term limits. Prevent another corrupt president from abusing the powers of the office.
One of the greatest failures of American civic education is that we teach people what government does, but rarely how government changes. We memorize the three branches of government and the Bill of Rights, yet few Americans understand the difference between constitutional law and ordinary legislation—or why that distinction determines whether a reform is politically possible.
The United States has already been founded twice.
The first founding came in 1787, when the Constitution established a new system of government unlike any the world had seen. The Bill of Rights soon followed as the political compromise that secured ratification, creating the constitutional framework that has endured for more than two centuries.
The second founding came after the Civil War.
The nation nearly destroyed itself over slavery and secession. Four years of unimaginable bloodshed settled the question of whether the Union would survive, but victory on the battlefield was only the beginning. During Reconstruction, Congress required the former Confederate states to ratify the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments before they could fully reclaim representation in the federal government.
Those amendments transformed the Constitution. They abolished slavery, established birthright citizenship, guaranteed equal protection and due process, and prohibited denying the right to vote on the basis of race. The Fourteenth Amendment, in particular, became the constitutional foundation for much of modern American liberty. Many of the civil rights and individual freedoms Americans take for granted today trace directly back to the Second Founding.
Every generation inherits the Constitution, but only one generation has had an opportunity to fundamentally remake it: the Civil War generation.
Today, America faces another constitutional moment, not because states are preparing to leave the Union, but because many of the assumptions built into an eighteenth-century Constitution no longer fit the realities of twenty-first-century politics. Unlimited campaign spending, partisan gerrymandering, an Electoral College that can reject the national popular vote, and growing concerns about presidential accountability have exposed weaknesses the Framers could never have anticipated.
Yet our political debate almost always skips over the most important question.
Can these problems actually be fixed? Some can, most cannot—at least not through ordinary legislation. Congress cannot abolish the Electoral College. It cannot rewrite the constitutional qualifications for the presidency. It cannot simply declare that money is no longer protected political speech if the Supreme Court continues to interpret the First Amendment as it does today.
To do these things the Constitution itself must be changed and the process to do so is arduous- hard to pull off in the best of times and these are not the best of times.
To amend the Constitution you need a 2/3rds vote in both chambers of Congress and ratification by 3/4s of the states. This is why despite passing through both the House and Senate, the Equal Rights Amendment failed to reach ratification.
In a country that can’t even pass a budget through normal legislation those barriers aren’t just hard, they are impossible. The last time we successfully amended the Constitution it was in 1996 and the issue was preventing congress from giving itself current-term pay raises. Hardly controversial.
History teaches us that America’s greatest constitutional reforms have never emerged from ordinary politics. They have emerged from extraordinary crises. The Constitution replaced the failed Articles of Confederation. The Reconstruction Amendments followed the Civil War. Each founding was born from a national reckoning that forced Americans to rethink the rules by which they governed themselves.
If America experiences another constitutional reckoning, we should not waste it. We should already know which reforms would strengthen our democracy—and what it would actually take to achieve them.
That is the purpose of this essay.
Reform One: Restoring Political Equality
Democracy rests on a simple promise: every citizen is politically equal.
Not economically equal. Not socially equal. Politically equal.
Every American gets one vote, and every vote carries the same weight. The legitimacy of democratic government depends on the idea that no citizen’s voice should count more than another’s simply because of wealth.
For most of American history, that principle was imperfectly realized but broadly understood. Wealthy Americans have always enjoyed advantages in politics, but there was also broad agreement that government could place reasonable limits on the role of money in elections to protect the integrity of representative government.
Over the past several decades, however, the Republican-controlled Supreme Court has moved in a different direction. Building on earlier decisions, the Court concluded that spending money to advocate for political candidates is protected by the First Amendment because money enables political speech. That constitutional reasoning reached its most famous expression in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Its practical effect has been unmistakable.
Modern American elections are now dominated by an arms race of Super PACs, billionaire donors, dark money organizations, and outside spending that would have been almost unimaginable a generation ago. Every citizen still receives one vote, but not every citizen possesses the same political voice. Those with extraordinary wealth can spend virtually unlimited sums shaping campaigns, financing advertisements, and influencing the political conversation.
Many Americans believe that is inconsistent with the democratic ideal of political equality. The question becomes: how do we change it?
There are only two realistic paths.
The first is judicial. A future Supreme Court could reverse or substantially narrow Citizens United and related decisions, concluding that the First Amendment permits greater regulation of money in politics than the current Court recognizes.
The second is constitutional.
Democracy rests on a simple promise: every citizen is politically equal.
Not economically equal. Not socially equal. Politically equal.
Every American gets one vote, and every vote carries the same weight. The legitimacy of democratic government depends on the idea that no citizen’s voice should count more than another’s simply because of wealth.
For most of American history, that principle was imperfectly realized but broadly understood. Wealthy Americans have always enjoyed advantages in politics, but there was also broad agreement that government could place reasonable limits on the role of money in elections to protect the integrity of representative government.
Over the past several decades, however, the Republican-controlled Supreme Court has moved in a different direction. Building on earlier decisions, the Court concluded that spending money to advocate for political candidates is protected by the First Amendment because money enables political speech. That constitutional reasoning reached its most famous expression in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Its practical effect has been unmistakable.
Modern American elections are now dominated by an arms race of Super PACs, billionaire donors, dark money organizations, and outside spending that would have been almost unimaginable a generation ago. Every citizen still receives one vote, but not every citizen possesses the same political voice. Those with extraordinary wealth can spend virtually unlimited sums shaping campaigns, financing advertisements, and influencing the political conversation.
Many Americans believe that is inconsistent with the democratic ideal of political equality. The question becomes: how do we change it?
There are only two realistic paths.
The first is judicial. A future Supreme Court could reverse or substantially narrow Citizens United and related decisions, concluding that the First Amendment permits greater regulation of money in politics than the current Court recognizes.
The second is constitutional.
A Third Founding could amend the First Amendment to make clear that while political speech enjoys the highest constitutional protection, the use of money to influence elections may be subject to reasonable regulation in order to protect political equality and democratic self-government.
Notice what is missing from those options.
Congress alone cannot simply pass a law declaring that money is no longer protected speech. As long as the Supreme Court continues to interpret the First Amendment as it does today, any law fundamentally inconsistent with that interpretation is likely to be struck down.
This is the difference between ordinary legislation and constitutional law. When a reform conflicts with the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court, changing the law is not enough. The constitutional rule itself must change.
If democracy means that every citizen enters the voting booth as a political equal, then restoring that equality should begin by asking whether our Constitution should continue to treat unlimited political spending as indistinguishable from political speech.
And while we’re in there clarifying free speech we should probably find a way to regulate campaigns ads as they are regulated in other democracies. America is the Wild West of elections and the only democracy that allows political ads to openly lie to you.
Notice what is missing from those options.
Congress alone cannot simply pass a law declaring that money is no longer protected speech. As long as the Supreme Court continues to interpret the First Amendment as it does today, any law fundamentally inconsistent with that interpretation is likely to be struck down.
This is the difference between ordinary legislation and constitutional law. When a reform conflicts with the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court, changing the law is not enough. The constitutional rule itself must change.
If democracy means that every citizen enters the voting booth as a political equal, then restoring that equality should begin by asking whether our Constitution should continue to treat unlimited political spending as indistinguishable from political speech.
And while we’re in there clarifying free speech we should probably find a way to regulate campaigns ads as they are regulated in other democracies. America is the Wild West of elections and the only democracy that allows political ads to openly lie to you.
So to recap…
Athana Mentzelopolous investigated the “irregularities” and was told to shut the investigation down…
But it was so bad, she went to the board who then said it to go to the police.
And then she was fired.
But she didn’t stop.
/1
Athana Mentzelopolous investigated the “irregularities” and was told to shut the investigation down…
But it was so bad, she went to the board who then said it to go to the police.
And then she was fired.
But she didn’t stop.
/1
She then filed for wrongful dismissal and included her findings in the hopes that someone in government would do the right thing.
They didn’t.
Instead, they dragged her name through the mud.
Then the judges report validated her concerns.
/2
They didn’t.
Instead, they dragged her name through the mud.
Then the judges report validated her concerns.
/2
Still no public inquiry.
The government has spent how much in taxpayers dollars to continue to fight Athana in court.
Then two podcasters from Ontario and Quebec were apparently hired to conduct what a judge called a “sandblasting” campaign to destroy Athana’s will to continue.
/3
The government has spent how much in taxpayers dollars to continue to fight Athana in court.
Then two podcasters from Ontario and Quebec were apparently hired to conduct what a judge called a “sandblasting” campaign to destroy Athana’s will to continue.
/3
Fyi I would do it myself I just don't have the fucking balls to do it so I'll need someone else to do the job for me as long as it's fast and quick and I don't know your doing it that would be the best way for me thank you 👍👍
@SurreyRCMP @surreyps @LangleyRCMP
@ChrisPentecos @Donaldnnicm @LangleyResident @BarbaraDoduk @RegretlessBee @Cdnwatcher @Istandtoreason @facepalmchris @trustednerd @felixcruggins @CultureGuard @WaxMyBallsShow @FranLa9 @kfurneaux20 @VernThurston @JonYaniv @JNonsense46242
@ChrisPentecos @Donaldnnicm @LangleyResident @BarbaraDoduk @RegretlessBee @Cdnwatcher @Istandtoreason @facepalmchris @trustednerd @felixcruggins @CultureGuard @WaxMyBallsShow @FranLa9 @kfurneaux20 @VernThurston @JonYaniv @JNonsense46242
@SurreyRCMP @surreyps @LangleyRCMP @ChrisPentecos @Donaldnnicm @LangleyResident @BarbaraDoduk @RegretlessBee @Cdnwatcher @Istandtoreason @facepalmchris @trustednerd @felixcruggins @CultureGuard @WaxMyBallsShow @FranLa9 @kfurneaux20 @VernThurston @JonYaniv @JNonsense46242 @threadreaderapp unroll
You know what Donald I'll take you up on that offer next time I go for a walk I'll let you know when and where and you or whoever else can kick my ass if you wish to fully kill me make it fast and quick you'll be doing me a huge favor cause I don't want to live long myself 👍👍👍
@SurreyRCMP @surreyps @LangleyRCMP
@ChrisPentecos @Donaldnnicm @LangleyResident @BarbaraDoduk @RegretlessBee @Cdnwatcher @Istandtoreason @facepalmchris @trustednerd @felixcruggins @CultureGuard @WaxMyBallsShow @FranLa9 @kfurneaux20 @VernThurston @JonYaniv @JNonsense46242
@ChrisPentecos @Donaldnnicm @LangleyResident @BarbaraDoduk @RegretlessBee @Cdnwatcher @Istandtoreason @facepalmchris @trustednerd @felixcruggins @CultureGuard @WaxMyBallsShow @FranLa9 @kfurneaux20 @VernThurston @JonYaniv @JNonsense46242
@SurreyRCMP @surreyps @LangleyRCMP @ChrisPentecos @Donaldnnicm @LangleyResident @BarbaraDoduk @RegretlessBee @Cdnwatcher @Istandtoreason @facepalmchris @trustednerd @felixcruggins @CultureGuard @WaxMyBallsShow @FranLa9 @kfurneaux20 @VernThurston @JonYaniv @JNonsense46242 @threadreaderapp unroll
